Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
His hypothetical was designed to get you to focus -- if only for a moment -- on the interests of the "real people" who get screwed by free trade.

Sometimes you are so pretentious it is nauseating. Why do I need to "focus" on the people who get "screwed"? I have already acknowledged that some people are disadvantaged by free trade. Is this Oprah or the Dr. Phil show, so I have to demonstrate that "I feel their pain" instead of just understanding there is pain. How will such "focus" alter the logic behind what tables is arguing and what I am arguing? It won't, it is just a chance for you to demonstrate once again your affinity for sour grapes.

Do you think if I "focus" for a while on the people that are disadvantaged by capitalism that I will rethink my position and develop a new appreciation for "socialism"? If I really focus on the pain caused by the loss of the slide rule industry I will reassess my position that the introduction of the calculator was positive for the U.S. economy? Give me a break.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They don't kill you for it.

I think Eric Rudolph would like a little more fucking respect and acknowledgement for the work he's done.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The surge = more of the same failed strategy.

How about at some point linking to something other than a blog?

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Spanky
How about at some point linking to something other than a blog?

2. You can start with some decent porn.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
2. You can start with some decent porn.

translated into Ty-eze that is essentially what he has been doing. sad.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Would it startle you to realize that - once again - your moral equivilance here is so absurd, that it's startling?

I'm not saying there's a moral equivalence. I'm just saying that I think it's dumb to make broad generalizations about a religion based on the ways that some people construe or ignore its doctrine. You wouldn't draw conclusions about Lutherans based on the Left Behind series.

[SlaveNoMore]

ironweed
I think Eric Rudolph would like a little more fucking respect and acknowledgement for the work he's done.

Is there a new "Eric Rudolph" macro here on the site of which I am unaware?

Besides, as terrorists go, Eric Rudloph was a piker. 3 deaths? 111 injured? That wouldn't even get him in the Palestinian Hall of Fame.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sometimes you are so pretentious it is nauseating. Why do I need to "focus" on the people who get "screwed"? I have already acknowledged that some people are disadvantaged by free trade. Is this Oprah or the Dr. Phil show, so I have to demonstrate that "I feel their pain" instead of just understanding there is pain. How will such "focus" alter the logic behind what tables is arguing and what I am arguing? It won't, it is just a chance for you to demonstrate once again your affinity for sour grapes.

Look, he's the one arguing with you on this, not me. I just got irritated when I waded through a lengthy post from you and you didn't bother to answer his point. So I called you on it, and you said his hypothetical wasn't about the real world. Well, that's bullshit. His hypothetical was about the real world.

You think it's OK to dick over the people who will get hurt by free trade because the country as a whole benefits. He was pushing you on that point by asking you to imagine that most people lose out, regardless of the net gains.

You're under no obligation to actually engage with his points, but why waste time on long posts if you're not going to try?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
All the kids in Houston had to take their TAKS tests yesterday, and I realized why I'm not a real big fan of them as a measure of the teacher's success. The kids' interests aren't aligned with the teachers.

Kids just have to pass the test. The scores don't really mean anything in their own advancement. They're not part of the course. I never really paid much attention to a test that didn't ultimately affect my grade or my chances of getting into college. I can't imagine that most other kids do either. But if the scores are aligned with the kids' success in the class, then they'll be a better reflection of how well the teacher is doing as a teacher.

Two articles sort of made me clarify my thinking on this a little.

First, a local public radio piece on legislative efforts to do away with the TAKS test and replace it with "end of course exams." One of the things that I thought was interesting on the current standardize testing is that as a reflection of the teacher, it's not very good too, because the current model is cumulative knowledge of various subject matters, which may not be what that particular teacher had anything to do with. This year's algebra teacher, in the example in the article, gets dinged because of last year's geometry teacher.

Second, a study that suggests that there's not much correlation between kids' test scores and their grades. Obviously, grade inflation could be a factor there, but I think it goes back to kids focusing on what's meaningful to them rather than testing your teachers.

1) I think problems with the test need to be improved upon, but because there are problems doesn't mean they should be thrown out. Although I don't think that is what you are arguing here, it is what the CTA does all the time. The exams are not perfect, so they should not be used anymore. It is like with the theory of evolution, the creationists point to a problem in it and conclude the whole theory must be bunk and not taught.

2) These issues point out while annual testing is so important. If you don't do annual tests you don't know which teacher is responsible for what. If they have the same math teacher for the entire year you know who is responsible, but only if you have annual tests.

3) To make an incentive for the students, passing is necessary for them to continue to the next grade. That way the student has a strong incentive to do well. You can also tie the test to their grade. And as far as them just doing enough to pass the exam, if during the exam they are unsure as what is necessary to pass, they will err on the side of doing the best they can instead of risking failure (that is if they are truly looking our for their interest)

4) As far as the Geometry and Algebra issue these exams are there to insure that people are getting a basic education. Once they hit the Algebra/Geometry level, the exams uselessness has really come to an end. The problem is that a large swath of students are graduating that can't do basic math or do basic English. That is what the exams are for. To find out how and where students are moving through the system and not getting a basic education. In order to fix this problem, you need to see exactly where the failure is occurring and why. Tests help you determine that.

5) As for grading the teachers, that is why cross comparisons are so important. You don't just look at the overall score; you look at how much the student has improved from the previous year's exam. And since you are testing basic math and English this is not hard to do. In addition, you can cross reference student’s performance from one class to another class, so if this year’s exam is harder than last years, it will be reflected in all the classes taking the exams. Again you are not testing teachers against some random criteria; you are testing them against each other. If you look at how much students improved from one year to the next, taking the same exams, and compare students in similar type of classes, then it will be clear which teachers are good at their job and which teachers are not.

Without these exams, I don't see how you can determine where the system is exactly failing; where it is allowing students to move through grades without learning anything. Before you can fix the system, you have to know where the problems are, and without annual standardized exams, I don't know how you do that. Do you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
How about at some point linking to something other than a blog?

Those nine paragraphs in that post with the narrower margins? They're from the transcript of remarks by Major General Fil, the commander of the First Cavalry Division in Baghdad.

If you insist on keeping your head in your ass, that's fine, but don't complain that it's dark.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not saying there's a moral equivalence. I'm just saying that I think it's dumb to make broad generalizations about a religion based on the ways that some people construe or ignore its doctrine. You wouldn't draw conclusions about Lutherans based on the Left Behind series.

Or much of what Luther had to say about, Jews, for example.

Or maybe Slave would?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Look, he's the one arguing with you on this, not me.

Exactly, that is why your input into the exchange is so annoying, unproductive and pretentious.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I just got irritated when I waded through a lengthy post from you and you didn't bother to answer his point. So I called you on it, and you said his hypothetical wasn't about the real world. Well, that's bullshit. His hypothetical was about the real world.

I did answer the relevent part of his post. And his hypothetical was not about the real world, it was based on the idea that ninety percent of the people in this country are hurt by free trade, which is about as unrealistic as assuming that most of the blogs you read have anything intelligent to say.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop You think it's OK to dick over the people who will get hurt by free trade because the country as a whole benefits.

"Ok to dick over the people?". If I say the government shouldn't pay for a sixty foot wall around every beach house in case a hurricane might come, does that mean I am saying that everyone that has a house on the beach should be "dicked over". If I support free speech, does that mean that anyone who gets insulted by such speech, I am saying it is "OK to dick over". You say you support free tree, so does that mean you are saying that people hurt by free trade should be "dicked over"

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He was pushing you on that point by asking you to imagine that most people lose out, regardless of the net gains.

Why should I imagine a scenario where most of the people in American lose out from free trade, any more than I should imagine a scenario where most Americans benefit from a permanent suspension of the "Bill of Rights". It is an absurd idea that has no place in a rational discussion about free trade.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop You're under no obligation to actually engage with his points, but why waste time on long posts if you're not going to try?

You have anough trouble defending your own often absurd positions on this board, why spend your time discussing how other people respond to other people's posts. Just leave it alone.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Those nine paragraphs in that post with the narrower margins? They're from the transcript of remarks by Major General Fil, the commander of the First Cavalry Division in Baghdad.

If you insist on keeping your head in your ass, that's fine, but don't complain that it's dark.

Are you saying that the URL http://toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/200...t-and-wet.html ...... is not part of a a blog?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why should I imagine a scenario where most of the people in American lose out from free trade, any more than I should imagine a scenario where most Americans benefit from a permanent suspension of the "Bill of Rights".

Because the logic of your position is that if the richest 10% of the population gains a lot from, say, getting rid of a particular tariff and the other 90% loses, but not quite as much, then you would favor getting rid of that particular tariff.

Or is that wrong? Do you favor free trade because you think it helps more people than it hurts, regardless of the aggregate effects?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you favor free trade because you think it helps more people than it hurts, regardless of the aggregate effects?

To be fair, I think (in typical Spanky style) he has said this repeatedly.